The collapse of the Roman Empire and its
attendant governmental authority, economic structure, and societal order
resulted in an end to civilization in Europe. Currency was no longer minted or regulated
and became worthless. The ships and carts of commerce stopped carrying food and
supplies. Unchecked lawlessness put travelers and isolated families at risk.
Those who dared to travel were no longer in a stream of travelers; they were
alone. The demise of travel further isolated communities because without
commerce and without news the outside world practically and psychologically
ceased to exist. People of means were suddenly without, and for the first time
were poor, hungry, helpless, and frightened.

Europeans gathered into defensive
clusters of tribes, villages, and towns, and several
families often lived in one communal home. Because there was almost no travel,
it was very rare to see a stranger, and strangers were distrusted and
unwelcome. People who did travel were frightened when they saw another person
because crime was so rampant. And the fear was not just of bands of outlaws. In
lean times those who were cold and hungry sometimes murdered traveling
strangers, cooked and ate their flesh, wore their clothes, and saved any food
and goods for later use – nothing was wasted. (Because of verses like Lk 18:20 we know the murder they committed
was a sin, and because of verses like Jn
6:51-58 we know the cannibalism wasn’t. Even so, cannibalism has always beenrepugnant – as it was to Christ’s disciples in Jn 6:59-61,66.)

The isolation of communities caused names
to be less important because in small communities there is no confusion as to
whom you are referring when you say Peter, or Jesus, or Barjesus
(son of Jesus – Ac 13:6), or Arthur, or MacArthur (son of Arthur), or
Will, or Willson, or Richard, or Richardson, or Abbas, or Barabbas (son of Abbas).
Often people were simply known as Blondie, Red, Redbeard,
or Skinny. If there might be some confusion about whom you were speaking it was
common to add specificity by saying Jesus of Nazareth, Richard the
Lion-hearted, Herod the Great, Pepin the Short, Henry the Eighth, and Philip
the Fair. Even the villages people lived in often had no names because without
travel a name wasn’t necessary. If a man got lost in the woods it was common
for him to never return: If he happened to stumble upon another settlement
those people couldn’t help him because his, “My village has a burned tree at
the top of a hill” meant nothing to them. And even if his village was called
Philipsburg, the people of the settlement knew neither Philip nor his burg. So
he spent the rest of his life there.

When larger populations made a second
name (or “last” name) necessary, these were often just the man’s occupation:
Miller, Wheeler, Tailor, Smith, Cooper, Farmer, Shepherd, Fuller. But people
were very casual about their names because ego – self – was not yet a big deal.
For example, even the educated German who in the late 16th century
founded a munitions dynasty variously wrote his own name as Krupp, Krupe, Kripp, and, of course, Krapp. In addition to the casual informality about names
and their spellings, people in the old days were often referred to by other
names (for unknown reasons) and by nicknames – all to the great consternation
of historians and Bible students. Lacking understanding about old-time names
and their spellings has sometimes led ignorant Christians to assume they have
found an error in the Bible when they think some name is incorrect.

Widespread poverty caused function and
necessity to have greater importance. Therefore, even prosperous peasants’
homes had but one room. Everyone who lived there, parents, grandparents,
brothers and sisters and their spouses and children, slept in and/or on the one
bed (Lk 11:7), which was usually on the
floor and of varying sizes and material. Privacy was neither a Biblical
requirement nor a necessity. So when a man and his wife engaged in sexual
activity it was variously applauded or ignored by all according to the mood. In
cold and inclement weather all shared the chamber pot in the corner. During the
warm months, especially when working, these European Christians often went
naked (Jn 21:7; Dt
24:12,13), just as people had throughout history.
Clothes, because they were hard to get, expensive to buy, and time-consuming to
make, were a luxury (Dt 24:13,17) prudently reserved for winter use. Therefore
when people dressed and undressed indoors in winter there was neither a
perceived need nor a moral requirement for privacy curtains or dressing rooms;
these people were not sinning against God. In lean years of famine many had to
sell their clothes (Lk 22:36) and faced
the prospect of no clothing even in winter.

Bathing was a luxury and was done outside
in public with no shame (2 Sa 11:2). There was
no plumbing. During the warm months after a hard day of labor it was routine
for the families of the community, often leading the family cow, to gather at
the river or lake to drink, bathe, and relax in the cool, quiet twilight.

Except when harvests were bad every meal
was washed down with wine in southern Europe, and with
beer in northern Europe – by adults and children. These Christians were not
sinning against God.

Before philosophy exalted ego/self and
equality, the people in society viewed themselves the same way the old
conservative, agrarian, philosophy-rejecting, democracy-hating Spartans did –
as figurative members of a larger body whose duty was to further the welfare of
the body. These European Christians had several bodies: The church, the family,
and the community. Self and what self wanted, therefore, was always
subordinated to the welfare of the church, the family, and the community. An
example of this pre-Enlightened viewpoint can be found in the old cathedrals of
Europe, many of which required three to four centuries to build. Even though
these cathedrals are marvels of architecture and construction, nothing is known
about the individuals who designed and built them because those people were not
thought to have done anything extraordinary. Why? Because
they were just doing their duty like everyone else in society. The man
who designed the cathedral had done nothing nobler than the man who weeded the
family vegetable garden or the woman who drew water from the well. There is no
nobler deed than the performance of one’s duty. One of the ironies of today’s
egalitarianism is that it has given various duties unequal stature: In direct
violation of 1 Co 12:20-26 ditch diggers are laughed at because they are
not rocket scientists.

At the same time the collapse of the
Roman Empire was causing chaos in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church – also
known as the Western Church – was using the teachings of Augustine to maintain
and strengthen its tenuous control of the western churches. Control means
communication, and in those days communication required travel. The bishop of
Rome (more commonly addressed in later years as “the pope”) communicated with
his bishops in various European locales by sending them messages via couriers.
Couriers had a difficult and dangerous job; there was no law enforcement and
they had no maps. The couriers delivered more than mail; they were welcome
sources of news about the outside world. By telling eager bishops what was happening
in the Eastern Church in Constantinople, and what deal the pope made with the
barbarians to keep them from sacking Rome again, and all the juicy tidbits of
gossip, the couriers helped establish Rome as the hub of western Christianity. And when the local bishops, in turn, sent their own couriers to
neighboring villages that had priests under their control, that flow of
information helped the villages regard the bishop as their hub.

----------
page 2 ----------

With this fragile infrastructure the
Catholic Church maintained a semblance of order, something that grew in direct
proportion to papal power. As the infrastructure developed and branched out
from the papacy and the bishoprics, the people in those bishoprics began to
demonstrate the same kind of geographic loyalty (later called nationalism)
their ancestors exhibited when the political rivalry between Rome and
Constantinople caused a similar geographic polarization in Christianity.
Therefore, as the papacy increased its control over Europe it also restored the
societal order that had collapsed with the Roman Empire. With order came
politics and the bishoprics began to gel into nations. With the nations came
law and order and the return of commerce.

The period of social chaos between the
social order and prosperity of the Roman Empire and the later formation of
nations in Europe is called the Dark Ages. Protestants generally blame the Dark
Ages on the Roman Catholic Church because it reached the zenith of its power
from about the 12th to the 16th centuries, power that
began to fade when the Protestant Reformation caused a return of Bible-oriented
Christianity. However, the Dark Ages was actually caused by the collapse of the
Roman Empire, something that happened before the Catholic Church existed. When viewed
from a superficial perspective it can be properly argued that the Roman
Catholic Church was the savior of Europe and was the instrument that restored
the order and prosperity of the Roman Empire.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

The chaos in society resulted in different men and various
groups vying with each other for political power. The papacy was just one of
these groups. When the army of a rival faction surrounded Rome and threatened
the papacy, Pope Stephen II in 754 made the long and dangerous journey to
France where he consecrated and crowned Pepin the Short (father of Charlemagne)
as king of the Franks. Now that Pepin had what he wanted – a throne legitimized
by “Apostolic authority” – he and his army followed Pope Stephen back to Rome
and drove the threatening army away.

When the Vatican crowned
people as kings it used an impressive “Christian” ceremony. The pope ignored
both the fact that the New Testament specifically commands Christians to submit
to and obey governors, and that it provides no guidelines for Christian
governance of society. The New Testament limits itself to addressing
administrative and disciplinary functions of the church itself. Therefore the
Vatican went into the Old Testament, borrowed from the accounts of David and
Solomon, and arranged coronation ceremonies that seemed official and
Scriptural.

Just as the Vatican
acquired real estate for itself in Rome that did not fall under the
jurisdiction of Italy, it acquired real estate all over Europe for churches,
rectories, monasteries, schools, seminaries, etc. It quickly grew into the
wealthiest, most powerful, most educated, and most corrupt
institution in Europe. Eventually the life of almost every European from birth
to burial was shaped and governed by Roman clergy. Most people, including the
highest-ranking priests, were ignorant of the Scriptures and therefore of
necessity had no alternative but to “serve” God by doing what was right and
good in accordance with their carnal Reason. That Christianity survived at all
is a tribute to God and His Bible; its survival certainly had nothing to do
with medieval “Christianity.”

While it is true that many in the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church were ignorant of the Scriptures, that is not to
say they were poorly educated. On the contrary, theirs were easily some of the
best minds in Europe. They were mentally far, far above the masses. That,
combined with their extreme wealth and power, insulated and isolated them from
normal society, which resulted in their living dual lives. In public they were
variously pious, aloof, arrogant, humble, and magisterial as situations
warranted. In private they simply did whatever they wanted. They got drunk,
they stayed up all night, they slept around the clock, they tinkered, they
read, they hunted, they hosted huge parties, they murdered people, they
traveled, etc. And, like most men in history with great power and authority
(such as David and Solomon), they possessed huge sexual appetites that were –
for the good men of history – difficult to control, and – for the bad –
something to be indulged. These clerics simply did anything and everything…and
they did it with impunity.

The upper echelons of
the Roman Catholic hierarchy were an elite group; they were above the law. They
would burn common people at the stake for voicing heresies and then retire to
the drawing room with a group of their peers to seriously discuss the very
heresies for which they executed others. They circulated books, manuscripts,
and papers among themselves that concerned philosophy, heresy, government,
religion, sexual practices, the economy, trade, foreign religions, etc. They
were minds, strong minds that examined, discussed, and became intrigued
with a topic – only to become bored with it later. Because they had strong
minds and walked on an intellectual plane, they could handle principles,
concepts, and ideas, including those associated with heresies. But the common
people lacked those mental abilities. If a commoner learned about a heresy he
couldn’t control himself; he invariably opened his stupid mouth and spread the
leaven to others like him in society where it often took root because the
masses were incapable of mentally dealing with and properly analyzing
principles and doctrines.

Throughout most of history the 1 Co 12:20-26 view of
humanity was accepted: People are not equal. They are different members of the
body of society who have different abilities and different jobs. This produced
mutual respect as long as each person did his duty. It was the duty of the
heads, the men who ruled, to do the thinking. As philosophy took root it
convinced people that all men are equal and that even the opinions of the
stupid and the ignorant were to be respected. That is why the Catholic
hierarchy began to fear the common masses and to control them by censoring
certain material the masses couldn’t handle.

And that is why
Copernicus did not get into trouble for publishing his theory that the
earth orbits the sun (something we still have not been able to prove in the 21st
century, which would contribute to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and
his Special Theory of Relativity); he got in trouble for publishing it in
the vernacular so the commoners could read it. He was burned at the stake.
Leonardo da Vinci also challenged existing “truths”,
but he not only did not publish his works, he wrote them backwards to keep them
from prying eyes. Leonardo lived to a ripe old age. Erasmus published parallel
texts of the Bible, but he did it in Latin and Greek so only scholars could
read them. William Tyndale, on the other hand, published the New Testament in
the vernacular and was executed.

---------- page
3 ----------

Pope Gregory I
(mentioned on page H6-2) in intellectual circles maintained that the three
Christian virtues (faith, hope, and charity) should be combined with the four
“Natural virtues” of the Greek philosophers (wisdom, courage, temperance, and
justice). But pagan philosophy still had centuries to go before it was made a
legitimate part of Christianity, so it wasn’t until the 14th century
that the two groups were combined into the seven “cardinal virtues.”

This slow and
reluctant acceptance of pagan doctrines was also responsible for the late
acceptance in Christian circles of “morality.” The Greeks said Nature’s
god had programmed Natural Laws into Nature. Man, part of Nature, was given
Reason to unlock these Natural Laws. The Natural Laws pertaining to society in
general were called Moral Laws, or Morality. And when morality, the instinctive
but vague knowledge of good and evil, is studied it results in rules of conduct,
which are called “Ethics.”

Pope Gregory I is not
generally regarded as a “Rationalist” – one who uses the Reason espoused by
philosophy. However, as a fan of Augustine he was certainly a forerunner of a
growing movement of clerics and scholars in the Catholic Church who were called
Christian Rationalists.

One of the humanistic
Catholic scholars who worked with and helped develop our modern value system of
morality and ethics was Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a monk who’d been
castrated as a penalty for his sexual escapades. A devotee of Greek philosophy,
he founded the University of Paris, which would become noted for its fervent
support of Reason. He taught university students and fellow monks, “Think for yourself. For I have learned something different from my
Arab masters – to use Reason as a guide. You however, taken captive by
authority, are merely led by a halter.” (He said “Arab masters” because the
writings of Greek philosophers had largely been destroyed by Vandalism. Then when
the Arabs conquered Alexandria they preserved – through their Arab translations
of the Greek, much of the fundamentals of philosophy.) Notice Abelard’s
statement only has seeming value when viewed with the carnal gut reaction of
“self-evidence.” In other words, he was a sophist who relied on “common
knowledge” for right and wrong rather than on any real and authoritative
source.

Abelard wrote two
books that were important as building blocks for Western civilization in which
he said allauthority should be subject (!) to Reasoned questioning. That was a huge and very bold step for
mankind – not to mention eunuchs. As a result of Abelard’s boldness he became a
leading spokesman for the “New Thinkers” and was the most conspicuous scholar
in Europe. His writings, including his Know Thyself, clearly showed that
much of Christianity contained intellectual problems and inconsistencies when
subjected to Reason. He wrote about passages in the Bible that were “obvious
errors” because the very fact that they offended humanistic Reason showed the
passages to be inconsistent with God’s Natural Law. Abelard’s work furthered a
subtle trend growing in Christian ranks: Pagan ways were no longer shunned and
were no longer unmentionables. For example, Abelard openly advocated using both
Christian values and pagan morals – as long as the two were not allowed to be
confused with each other. He thought it should be taught that morals and ethics
contained certain principles of Christianity, but only in those
cases believed to be consistent with philosophic Reason. In this way he
believed Western society could be improved in practical ways without
compromising Christian doctrine. Understandably, Abelard was more popular with
those scholars within the church who placed greater value on Reason than on
faith in written revelation. (Many Christians would have ended the previous
sentence with the word faith. But because “faith” has come to mean
different things that did not come from the Bible – and is therefore not the
Biblical faith that pleases God – I prefer to include words like written
revelation in order to make it clear what real faith is based upon.)

Intellectuals like
Abelard who agreed with philosophy were a minority that conservatives
derisively called “Rationalists” because they used secular humanism/Reason to
point out “problems” in the Bible that offended Reason – such as miracles.
Conservative scholars such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux
(1090-1153) warned that Christian Rationalism would grow and eventually become
a problem. He said Rationalism was a subtle danger because any so-called
“neutral” pursuit of knowledge, such as secular scholarship, Christian
Rationalism, and science, is not neutral; it is actively pagan and
contrary to the lordship of Christ and the glory of God. We’ll see why Bernard
was correct in a few minutes.

Pagan concepts like
morality and ethics would continue to make slow inroads into Christianity. René
Descartes (1596-1650) for example, became a popular proponent of morality
by merely repeating earlier theories. Morality, he taught, is the result of
conforming to the Law of Human Reason programmed into all men. Morality and
ethical behavior, therefore, can be learned by man’s introspective study of
himself and his proper place in Nature.

Not everybody was
happy with the increasing trend to consider morality as a worthy part of
Christian society. Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), the author of Gulliver’s
Travels, said, “The system of morality to be gathered from the writings of
ancient sages falls very short of that delivered in
the gospel.” But Swift was in the minority. He and those who shared his view
were considered boring and old fashioned, and were outnumbered by people like Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher who is still considered a superstar.
Kant’s 1781 work, Critique of Pure Reason, advocated the use of secular
Reason. In Critique he said he was filled with “ever-increasing wonder
and awe” every time he reflected on “the moral law within me.” His works – which are extremely complex – really only build on the
writings of Descartes and Locke. Yes, to us today the teachings of the
Big Names are anticlimactic and somewhat of a disappointment because of their
childish simplicity, naïveté, sophistry, and complete lack of any reliable and
authoritative foundation. But back then the fact that these ideas were radical
and daring challenges to the authority structure that had existed since God
made the angels and Adam made them exciting, heady stuff.

“SPIRIT: The soul
of man; the intelligent, immaterial and immortal part of human beings: See
SOUL.”

“SOUL: The spiritual,
rational, and immortal substance in man which distinguishes
him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason,
and which renders him a subject of moral government. The immortality of the
soul is a fundamental article of the Christian system.”

We find no Scripture.
We find that soul and spirit are not separate entities like God said. We find
that the soul cannot die like God said it could. And we find that the human
soul is tuned into “moral” rules by its ability to use Reason. Why did
Christians begin saying Reason differentiates men from beasts? Because they
needed to defend the traditional doctrine of the immortality of the soul that they
inherited from the Greeks and Saint Augustine against the Bible: The Bible says
God gave animals soulsandthe breath of life, which made
it look like there really was no difference between men and animals. And
that meant, 1) animals having souls and the breath of life meant they, too, had immortal souls, or 2) all souls are mortal
and man gets immortality only from the second (spirit) body of the new birth.
The pagan Greek theory of Reason came to the rescue: Reason seemed like a
perfect “proof” that unregenerate men and beasts were not the same like
the Bible says they are, and for centuries it was accepted that man was
different from beasts…and Christians “only” had to ignore a few verses of
Scripture. By the time Webster wrote his dictionary Reason had become a
“Christian” concept. Did Webster learn about morality and Reason from the Bible
– or from philosophy? Let’s see what Webster has to say about moral:

“MORAL: 1) The word
moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil…and has reference to the law
of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The
word however may be applied to actions which affect only…a person’s own
happiness. 3) Supported by the evidence of Reason…founded on experience… 7) In
general, moral denotes something which respects the conduct of men…as social
beings whose actions have a bearing on each other’s Rights and Happiness, and
are therefore right or wrong. Moral sense is an innate or Natural
sense of right and wrong; an instinctive perception of right and wrong…independent
of…the knowledge of any positive [real] rule or law [like the Bible]. But the
existence of any such moral sense is [now] very much doubted.”

Notice (as we address
the last part first) he does a pretty good job quoting the pagan party line
before admitting that Moral Law/Natural Law was by 1828 generally known to be
just another Greek myth. The problem is the non-existent Natural Law foundation
of morality no longer matters! Why? Because Webster accurately shows
that by 1828 morality was unquestioningly incorporated into Christianity!
I say again, by 1828 no Scripture was required because the carnal
self-evidence of Reason was – and is – blindly accepted as Christian. Read
the definition of MORAL again and carefully notice it comes right out and says
Christians and pagans do not need the Bible because the Prime Mover wants
mankind to utilize the [forbidden] fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
[rather than discerning] good and evil. (Read that sentence again and
substitute Satan for Prime Mover.)

Now notice that
Webster’s definitions of MORAL are actually deceitful because the average
ignorant Christian will assume Webster’s use of “the law of God” has to do with
the Bible when it is really a reference to the mythical Laws of Nature, which
were derived by Reason and assumed to be more dependably consistent than the
Bible because the Bible might be wrong but Reason and Natural Law were direct
conduits to the Prime Mover itself.

I applaud Webster’s
integrity for including in his dictionary the fact that morality might not even
exist. However, three things are true: First, in 1828 morality wasn’t the only
facet of Western civilization in danger of toppling. Natural Law itself, which
was the key link between pagan philosophy and Christianity, was increasingly
recognized as something that never existed. That meant the foundational
principles and doctrines of Western civilization and its cherished
institutions, like its democratic forms of government, its laws, and modern
Christianity, which were derived from Nature’s Laws, were based on a lie.
Second, the Christians like Webster who participated in the Natural Law debate
were in a distinct minority in Christianity. Most Christians in 1828 were no
different from Dark Age Christians and 21st century Christians –
incapable of understanding and dealing with the Biblical importance of words,
principles, ideologies, and doctrines. Because they had not studied the Bible
to shew themselves approved unto God, they tried to
hide the fact that they were shameful workmen who could neither rightly divide
the word nor put two intelligent sentences back-to-back in a discussion about
doctrine. They tried to hide their inexcusable ignorance of Scripture by
scurrying around with wide eyes and horrified tones as they babbled about
Satanic New Age symbols on product labels, black helicopters, social security
numbers, and all manner of pointless trivia having no meaning or relevance when
viewed from the perspective of eternity – or even from just a few years later.
Therefore, Christians who recognized the horrifying implications of the Natural
Law hoax were without remedy because they were not only a minority among
Christians, they were in a democratic country run by the majority. Third, even
though Webster wrote that admission/warning in his definition of moral,
take a look at his definition of ethics:

“ETHICS: [The results of] the science of
moral philosophy, which teaches men their duty and the reasons of it.” His definition is a fairly good one but
where is the warning that, because ethics is based on morality and morality is
based on Natural Law, it’s all a joke?

Look at Webster’s
definition of “Law of nature”: “Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out
of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and
existing prior to any positive precept [such as the Bible]. Thus it is a
law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and
fraud would [still] be crimes, independent of [even without] any
prohibition from a supreme power [rules from God].” It was believed the Law
of Nature was programmed into us by whatever supreme being or prime mover might
be out there so we could know the truth about religion, and could know right
and wrong via Reason (which incorrectly caused Ro 1:18-32 to be applied
to all men – even the unregenerate). The Bible, therefore, was only true
in those parts that agreed with Reason. And the parts in Scripture that
depended on faith may or may not be true. The important point here is to note
that Webster believed the Laws of Nature were designed by God to teach His
rules to us even without the Bible! If Webster was right, I am wrong.
And if Webster was right, the fact that most Christians do not know the Bible
very well is perfectly OK – because we don’t need it!

---------- page
5 ----------

Was I correct when I
said the laws of Western civilization are based on Natural Law and not the
Bible? Well, let’s again consult Noah Webster, our Rationalist founding father
and ardent supporter of George Washington: “Law of nations, the rules
that regulate the mutual intercourse of nations or states. These rules depend
on natural law, or the principles of justice that spring from the social
state; or they are founded on customs, compacts, treaties, leagues and agreements
between independent communities.” Webster correctly states that Natural Law
comes from the “social state” and is the source of the laws of nations. How
then did your preacher get the idea that the government of the United States of
America and its laws are founded upon “Scripture” or “Biblical principles”? He
got that idea because he is as careless studying history as he is studying the
Bible – he honestly doesn’t know that when our founding fathers said stuff
about our government and its laws being based on God’s truth, Biblical
principles, Christianity, etc., they only said that because their acute
ignorance/unbelief concerning the Scriptures caused them to foolishly accept
the philosophy that anything that was self-evident was only self-evident
because the “supreme being” programmed His truth into us. The founding fathers
thought they were founding a government based on truth – that meant the
government was based on the principles of the Koran, or the Bible, or the
teachings of Buddha, or whatever religion ended up being the true one. Since
many of the founding fathers were Christians they therefore Naturally assumed
that because they based the government of this nation on Natural Law they were
glorifying God in accordance with whatever parts of the Bible turned out to be
true. There was no conspiracy: Just like God’s people in the Old Testament
often angered Him by doing what they honestly thought would be right and
pleasing in His sight, the founding fathers screwed up by letting the
philosophy the Bible warns us about convince them that the carnal mind was
programmed by God to be a substitute for His Holy Bible.

To find an example of
this we need look no further than our old buddy, Noah Webster. He has already
told us the Law of Nature, and its derivative – morality, and morality’s
derivative – ethics, do not come from the Bible. Now carefully read his
definition of moral law (as opposed to his earlier definition of moral)
and do what your preacher should have done – pay attention to what he doesn’t
say as well as what he does say:

“Moral law, a
law which prescribes to men their religious and social duties, in other
words, their duties to God and to each other. The moral law is
summarily contained in the decalogue
or ten commandments, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and
delivered to Moses on mount Sinai. Ex. xx.” See what I mean? He doesn’t say Moral
Law comes from or is based on the Bible or the Ten Commandments. No, he
turns it the other way around and says the Ten Commandments are but a
brief summary of, or based on, the Moral Law. In other words Webster – like all
other Christian Rationalists – believed Moral Law, or Natural Law, to
be the foundation upon which God based the Ten Commandments and the
Bible. Now you know why so many Christians think the U.S. Constitution is
divinely inspired: Just like the Ten Commandments are God’s holy truth because
they are based on the Moral Laws of Nature, anything that is also
based on the Moral Laws of Nature – such as the Constitution – has a status and
importance equal to that of the Ten Commandments. (To see an example showing 21st-century
Americans still think the Constitution is divinely inspired, read the formal
campaign statement on page D24-8 of a Christian politician while he was running
for President.)

Now let’s see why St.
Bernard of Clairvaux was correct when he predicted
Christian Rationalism’s blending of Reason with Scripture would cause problems:
Once again we find our old Christian Rationalist friend, Noah Webster, is a good
example. Webster said the Ten Commandments contained Moral Law. That
means the Ten Commandments are not authoritative because they were written by
the finger of God, but because they were based upon or in agreement with the
Moral Laws of Nature that God supposedly set up. That means if God had written
commandments that did not contain or were not based upon the Moral Laws of
Nature, those commandments would be revealed by Reason to be violations of the
Laws of Nature, which would make them contrary to the truths programmed into
Nature and Reason by the true supreme being. And that
would mean the god who wrote the ten commandments with
his own finger was a fake who should have subordinated himself to the rules
established by the true God revealed by Reason. Rationalists would use this
type of “Webster Reason” to discredit Jesus Christ because His miracles
violated the true god’s Natural Laws. What the philosophy of the Christian
Rationalists also meant was any laws created by man that were revealed by Reason
to be self-evident, were actually in accordance with Nature’s true God and
therefore should become international laws that were binding for all
men. But that’s not all. The fact that Nature’s God programmed human Reason to
reveal His universal and eternal Natural Laws meant all men really were God’s
children, really did all have immortal souls, and really should have
governments over them ruling in accordance with the Natural truths He
established. Reason could now be used to subdue and unite the world – while
thinking we were fulfilling God’s commission to Adam to subdue the world!

In summation: The
acceptance of Reason as part of Christianity by “Christian Rationalists” like
Noah Webster took the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil and made it good! Because this topic is so important I want you to
now – with Webster’s definitions in mind – reread the first two paragraphs
under “The Kingdom Divided” on page H1-1. You need to understand the fact that
over the centuries Christians changed the definition of carnality by making it
deal primarily with sexual lust, and they used the mythical idea that the
“Prime Mover” programmed its “Laws of Nature” and “Reason” into us so we could
logically base right and wrong in our lives upon self-evidence. By so doing,
our forefathers made the true and evil meaning of carnality actually become a
good and necessary part of modern Christianity. It is only because we no longer
know what carnality is that we are able to view carnal fruit like
Freedom, Independence, and Democracy as good. Let’s continue to follow history
and see how clairvoyant St. Bernard of Clairvaux was
when he said Rationalism would paganize
Christianity.

The Roman Catholic
Church had grown so large and powerful it could now use warfare to promote its
doctrines, spread its influence, and defend itself from any threat. Therefore
in 1095 the Vatican launched the holy wars known as Crusades, or as the
Muslims call them, Jihads, which would continue for two bloody
centuries.

Obviously, if the
Vatican could draw upon the resources of European nations for such large
armies, those nations were once again established, secure, orderly, and wealthy
enough to support commerce. The Crusades also revived an interest in
philosophical Reason. Therefore the Crusades effectively mark the end of the
Dark Ages portion of the Middle Ages.
The terms Dark Ages and Middle Ages are used by historians to
mark the low tide of Reason: The classical age of the pagan Greeks and Romans
was “good” because it was an age of Reason. And the modern age of Enlightened
Western civilization is “good” because it is another age of Reason. But in
the middle of those two ages there was a “bad” period when Christians
rejected Reason – called the Middle Ages (400-1300 A.D.). The more
specific term, Dark Ages, refers to the first part of the Middle Ages
(400-1000) before the Crusades rekindled interest in the Reason of the Greek
philosophers. Again, the Middle Ages are
the years between the Hellenized civilization of the Roman Empire and the
Hellenized civilization of Europe.

---------- page
6 ----------

European commerce with
foreign nations had already resumed by the time of the Crusades, but the
Crusades stimulated international trade because when common soldiers returned
to their homes with foreign goods their friends and neighbors developed an
appetite for those goods. As commerce increased, so too did academic
intercourse. Western scholars were able to obtain more Arabic – and to a lesser
extent Hebrew – translations of Greek philosophical works. These turned out to
be wonderful sources of pure philosophic leaven, and Western scholars realized
most of the traditional sources of philosophic thought that they’d studied for
centuries had been edited and diluted by old-fashioned Christian scholars who,
offended by and suspicious of pagan philosophy, removed the parts they thought
were too radical and dangerous.

Today it is difficult
to appreciate just how radical and offensive philosophy was. After all,
in just a few pages we have easily covered material it took European Christians
centuries to digest. There are two reasons philosophy took so long to work its
way into the fabric of the lives of Western Christians: First, philosophy truly
was radical to people in general and Christians in particular who had, since
time began, lived under authority. People simply were not supposed to think or
act on their own unless they were an authority and had that prerogative. And
even Christian authorities who had no earthly authority over them – like King
David – were still required to check with God before doing anything to ensure
they didn’t offend Him. Christians simply understood how arrogantly evil
it was to do something without proper authority, to step out of line, to leave
your place in society, to be a foot that acted without consulting the head.
Second, philosophy remained an academic pursuit within the exclusive and
carefully protected domain of scholars…until it began to be passed on to the
unthinking masses – most notably and dramatically by Martin Luther. Scholars
were careful with Reason because they had the mental capacity to realize how
truly revolutionary it was to the fundamental structure of society. Lacking
that mental ability to deal with concepts and principles, the masses would
respond to Reason by “knowing” on a gut level it was right and good because it
“felt” so Naturally self-evident.

Yes, Christian
scholars were titillated by philosophy and enjoyed flirting with and
occasionally being seduced by its charms. But they knew it was very dangerous.
That is why people like Ambrose and Augustine, even while subtly using
philosophy in their works, were careful to publicly condemn it. Other Christian
Rationalists, afraid to go directly to pagan philosophy to justify their
Reason, cloaked their works in sheep’s clothing by quoting, drawing on, and
building upon the leavened works of “Saint Augustine”, “the church fathers”,
“early Christian thinkers”, etc.

The Dominican Order was originally
established in accordance with St. Augustine’s teachings, but when he became a
scholastic and doctrinal embarrassment the
order was reorganized in accordance with the teachings of St. Thomas
Aquinas. The order was established to take care of heretics in general –
and the Cathari in particular.

In the early 11th century a
large group of Christians who were not Roman Catholics and who were openly
opposed to the doctrines of the Western Church appeared on the Vatican’s Most
Wanted list. These Christians called themselves Cathari,
which means “the pure.” They lived in southern France and in pockets in the
mountainous regions of northern Italy. The Vatican controlled most of Europe,
including northern France. But southern France, because it was largely
populated by Cathari, was not under the political or
religious control of Rome. The Vatican wanted to control all of Europe, and the
Cathari were in the way. Because there was a large
population of Cathari in Albi,
France, the Cathari are often called Albigenses.

The Cathari
believed the Catholic Church was the Whore of Revelation 17. They rejected
Catholic doctrine and all of what Rome called “sacraments.” They preached only
the Bible, believing the church should not be part of the world and should not
base its doctrines upon the theories of the unregenerate. Therefore they
rejected as unscriptural Aristotle’s teaching that “Reason is a light that God has kindled in
the soul” so all men can instinctively know the Laws God programmed into Nature
(page H5-3), and they rejected the Catholic Church’s acceptance
of the pagan theory that the souls of the unregenerate have everlasting life. That pagan
foundation also resulted in other Roman Catholic “Natural Law
doctrines” such as, “At the bar of God’s justice, a man will not be judged by
anything but his own conscience.” The Cathari
believed immortality was available to the souls of men only through the
Biblical new birth, and that God’s truth is available only through His word.
They believed the Natural, carnal, physical old man is instinctively evil and Naturally opposed to God. This Natural human evil manifested
itself in man’s tendency to be independent of God, which is rebellion against
His Headship. This meant all philosophy was evil rebellion, and a monk in a
monastery contemplating Self in order to learn
about God was wasting both his time and the offerings of faithful
Catholics.

It is hard to be definite about the
doctrines of the Cathari because so little of what
they believed has survived. They are almost universally labeled as heretics by
secular and religious historians for four reasons: First, what we know of their
beliefs about the nature of good (walking in the Spirit) and evil (walking in
the flesh) is from sketchy and vague information that can easily be
misinterpreted as Dualism, which is itself vague and ill-defined. Second,
modernists love Natural Reason and dislike those who don’t. Third, since most
of Europe was Roman Catholic, Catholicism is often thought of as the standard
by which Christianity is judged: all others are “heretics.” Fourth, little is known
about low-profile Christian groups like the Cathari, the Paulicians, the Bogomils, and
the Wends or Sorbs (who were, interestingly enough, of Slavic and Saxon origin:
see pages D24-1 and D27-12). These groups fellowshipped with each other and
rejected the authority and orthodoxy of the powerful Church of Rome. When the
Catholic Inquisition exterminated them it even burned their books and
literature. Nothing has survived. Therefore, the same enemies who massacred
them wrote all of the “history” about them, and the information must be viewed
as anti-Cathari propaganda intended to make the
extreme and shocking measures taken to kill them appear justified. (For
documentation of the atrocities committed see Fox’s Book of Christian
Martyrs and van Braght’sMartyrs Mirror.)

---------- page
7 ----------

In fact, because the Cathari
and the other groups were so numerous and occupied such a large area across
southern Europe, and because their beliefs were considered to be so threatening
to Catholic doctrine, four large-scale military Crusades were launched against
them – just like the ones sent to the Holy Land, and with the same material and
spiritual incentives to do a thorough job. Millions were slaughtered during this
Christian holocaust. By 1200 the surviving Cathari
were so few in number the mop-up work was left to the Inquisition. By 1400 they
were completely exterminated.

Secular history always stresses the economic importance of the Crusades
because they increased trade between east and west. And secular history views
the military results of the Crusades
to be inconsequential because the permanent acquisition of dominion over the
Holy Land failed. But the doctrinal
effects of the Crusades on Christianity were lasting and had two great
consequences: First, the Biblical teaching of the mortality of the unregenerate
soul was exterminated along with the Cathari; and
second, all resistance of any consequence to the universal spread of Romish Rational Christianity was killed. Since then Natural
Reason has become a part of Christian life, and the immortality of the pagan
soul has never been seriously questioned.

When Dante wrote The Divine Comedy
around 1315, the Crusades against the Cathari,
together with the Inquisition’s teaching that anyone who denied the immortality
of pagan souls was a heretic, were well known to European society. Dante agreed
with the forerunner of Rationalist Christians, Justin (page H5-6), about the
fate of certain pagans. It may be that Dante was also influenced by the uproar
over the Cathari and how crucial the Roman Church
said the immortality of pagan souls was, because in Divine Comedy Dante
had God refuse to put the pagan philosophers who originated the theory of the
immortality of the unregenerate soul in hell – He rewarded them by
putting them in Limbo instead! But those people who did not adopt the pagan
doctrine were assigned to the deepest parts of hell.

By the time the Crusades began,
philosophy was widely accepted among scholars and was beginning to infect
society as people started to think and act on their own – albeit in relatively
minor displays of rebellion. Marriage is a good example. Originally, marriage
was not a “sacrament” because marriage was not complicated – a man gave his daughter
to another man to be his wife. A supper or other celebration was held to
announce the union so no one would think the woman was sinning when she slept
with her husband, and so all would know she now had the authority to act in her
husband’s name. But over the years the Catholic Church assumed more and more
control over various aspects of life. Rome ignored what the Bible said and
declared marriage to be not only a “sacrament” by which the married received
“sanctifying grace”, but also, since the Western Church was God’s agent and
dispenser of His sanctifying grace on earth, a Roman Catholic priest had to be
at the wedding or it didn’t count. Oh, the families could still announce and
celebrate the union at a marriage supper if they wanted, but the Church had to
be involved. And that had been the way Catholics performed weddings for
centuries – with a priest. But now some Catholics were beginning to return to
the original way of marrying – without a priest, and then have the marriage
recorded by a village clerk to make it a matter of public record. The Vatican
responded by telling people any alternatives to church weddings, such as a
marriage supper or the use of a justice of the peace to certify that a wedding
had taken place, were not the sacrament of matrimony, did not convey
sanctifying grace, and were heresy. When people continued to ignore the Vatican
and use private ceremonies, the Office of the Inquisition was instructed to add
non-church weddings to its list of heresies. The Inquisition did almost as
thorough a job dealing with marriage as it did with the immortality of the soul
issue because today many people – even Protestants – think the only valid union
is one that is presided over by a preacher. And that is how church weddings and
the immortality of the pagan soul became traditional doctrines in Christianity.

At the same time the Vatican was using the Inquisition to
control the pewsters, it had to contend with increasing division in the Catholic
hierarchy. Liberals wanted more Reason in Christianity and conservatives wanted
less. There did not seem to be any easy solution and as a result Vatican policy
on the matter was erratic. The problem facing the Vatican was real. On its face
this was just another academic squabble among the intellectual elite. But
underneath was a nagging fear shared by conservatives and many liberals: What
would happen to society and to the Church if the mindless masses had their
Reason unleashed?

And then a shocking
incident in England seemed to indicate their fears about liberating the masses
were well founded, and that the order of the whole world might be turned upside
down. In 1215 English barons, unhappy with King John, forced him to sign the Magna
Carta,
which would eventually become one of the “sacred documents” in
democratic history. This document gave them “rights” and took away the king’s
prerogative to arbitrarily put people in jail. (This incident would, several
hundred years later, be interpreted by liberal antiquarians as an ancient
Natural Law “proof” that kings are supposed to be subject to the people and to
laws made by the people.) The pope was shocked that subjects could be so
rebellious against authority; it just didn’t happen: This was an era when every
child learned submission and self-control by getting his face slapped if he
dared to sass his mother. Stop and think for a minute: If the Magna Carta rebellion does not seem like that big of a deal to
you, you need to remember that all authority is of God. Would you sass Him or
try to force Him to grant you His prerogatives? The pope properly released King
John from honoring the highly illegal and unchristian Magna Carta.

As a person, King John
was despicable. He was a liar who betrayed both his father when he was king,
and his brother, Richard the Lion-hearted, when he was king. And John did not
improve when he became king. He was a treacherous and cruel hypocrite motivated
only by greed. Biblically speaking, however, none of that
matters as far as his subjects were concerned – if they were Christians.
[No, I don’t think they were Christians. Neither do I think the other Roman
Catholics mentioned in this book were Christians – no matter how I word things
when writing about them. Neither do I think the Roman Catholic Church is a true
Christian organization. But this is a textbook and we are in a
classroom learning from history what is Biblical behavior and what is
not. And not a lot of material is available about the tiny groups of real
Christians – because they quietly lived submissive lives. So, let’s get back to
work.]

---------- page
8 ----------

Following the Magna Carta rebellion another Englishman, Roger Bacon
(1214-1294), a Franciscan monk and student of philosophy, taught at Oxford
University (a popular English center for learning Greek philosophy) that the
secular Reason espoused by Greek philosophy was a gift of God to be used for
the betterment of mankind. (Today when Christians defend their carnal – and
often ignorant – opinions with, “Well, God gave us brains and I think He expects
us to use them”, they don’t realize they have merely restated Roger Bacon’s
rehash of pagan philosophy in a more immature way.) Bacon was part of a group
of liberal, pro-philosophy Roman Catholics that was growing in size and influence at the same time that anti-philosophy Christians
like the Cathari were being systematically hunted
down and exterminated. He was one of those who kept the Vatican busy
administering discipline because he was always picking quarrels with
conservative academics whose views differed from his. Bacon is most noted for
his work helping to develop methods of scientific observation and is called the
Admirable Doctor. But his influence pales in comparison with his Italian
contemporary, Albertus Magnus.

Saint Albertus Magnus (1200-1280) was a Dominican bishop and teacher of
philosophy at the radical University of Paris. (France was popular with
militant Christian Rationalists, and the University of Paris was a major Temple
of Reason.) Albertus would become the Catholic patron
saint of all scientists by papal decree because of all he did for philosophy.
He is the only scholar of his age to be called “the Great.”

Albertus, as a member of the Dominican Order
whose responsibility it was to exterminate heretics who rejected the pagan
Greek doctrine of the immortality of all unregenerate souls, wrote several
major works defending the doctrine. Christian intellectuals of the time were
grappling with the issue not so much because of the ongoing, high profile
extermination of the Cathari, but because of the
influence of a Spanish-Arab scholar named Averroes (1126-1198), who was
a noted translator of Aristotle’s works. Although Averroes was dead, his works
were becoming available in Europe and were greatly admired by – and very
influential among – both Jewish and Christian scholars. A noted philosopher who
exalted Reason, Averroes correctly pointed out that all arguments for the
immortality of the pagan soul – whether made by pagans like the Greek
philosophers or Christians like Augustine – were based on specious reasoning,
and therefore the true, unbiased position of philosophy had to be that
the soul was – just as unbiased scientific observation revealed it to be –
mortal. His point was so obviously right, Christian scholars found themselves
in the embarrassing position of having to admit not only that their great Saint
Augustine had based his doctrinal conclusions on faulty Reason, but also that
Christian scholars for almost eight hundred years had blindly accepted
Augustine’s position as a foundational Christian doctrine. The implications
were enormous. If the Bible says the unregenerate souls of humans are not
immortal – just like the souls of animals are not immortal, and previously
discredited verses like Ec 3:18,19 and Mt
15:26 had been literally correct all along, the first problem for
the Roman Catholic Church was its daily slaughter of the innocent and
doctrinally-correct Cathari. The second problem was
more far-reaching: The Catholic Church had relied on the doctrine of the
immortality of pagan souls to justify a daisy chain of other doctrines: 1)
Pagans are just as much children of God as Christians; 2) therefore pagans must
be required to live by the Bible; 3) if they don’t they will go to hell; 4)
therefore Rome must continue to conquer pagan lands in order to convert
hell-bound pagans and to establish Christian government. If the Cathari were right it meant instead of being so obsessed
with compassing sea and land to make one more proselyte, the Catholic Church
should have spent more time and energy training up its pewsters
in the way of the Bible so they could avoid the common pitfalls the Bible says
are so habitual among God’s people.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy reacted the same way most
Christians today would react. Instead of humbly pausing to Scripturally analyze
a doctrine that had been fumbled by pagan philosophers whose great Reason was
so tuned into God’s truth that even He wouldn’t throw them into hell, a
doctrine that had been botched – or ignored – by every great Christian mind for
eight hundred years (with the possible exception of Christians like the Cathari), the Vatican became stubbornly defensive and,
suddenly unable to rely on the old “common knowledge” that pagan souls have
everlasting life, resorted to sophistry. If it admitted it had been wrong for
so many centuries and allowed doubt to exist about the immortality of pagan
souls, people might respond by having doubts about the validity and purpose of
the Catholic Church itself – and even begin to doubt immortality and the existence
of the spiritual realm. Using that specious, issue-dodging justification, the
Vatican, knowing it didn’t know if it was right or wrong about the doctrine but
figuring there was too much at stake, began looking for one of its best minds
to step forward and establish the validity of the doctrine once and for all. At
the same time, the Vatican decided to continue killing Cathari
rather than impartially confer with them about the doctrine.

The man chosen to
champion the pagan/Catholic doctrine was Albertus
Magnus, Dominican defender of Augustinian doctrine. As Albertus
began to look into the immortality issue he found out why no one – pagan or
Christian – had been able to prove the doctrine: It wasn’t in the Bible! Any
“Scriptural” defense, therefore, had to be built upon verses whose
interpretation depended on assumptions – assumptions now called into question.
The Bible turned out to be useless as a defense because it repeatedly said
human souls die in the same way Christians now believe animal souls die, and
the Bible repeatedly said the unregenerate were in fact no different from
animals because they both die. Therefore, if Albertus
argued that verses in the Bible like Josh 11:11; Ps 89:48; Jb 12:10/Re 16:3; and Ezek 18:20 were really only
talking about mortal, physical bodies – and not mortal souls as
was literally written – he would make things worse because such an argument
would lead to the obvious conclusion that pagans and animals both have
everlasting souls – and thereby force the Vatican to start exterminating any
Christians who believed the souls of unsaved beasts were mortal! And that would
mean the animals in the manger were there worshipping the newborn Saviour in order to save their immortal souls from hell! Albertus was in quite a pickle.

With nothing
Scriptural to go on, Albertus had to do what others
before him had done – ignore what the Bible actually said and use sophistry to
build a case. Because he and all the other Christian scholars he consulted were
unable to come up with anything definitive that wouldn’t blatantly contradict
the Bible, Albertus’ first treatise was
unsatisfactory, which caused him to ultimately write a series of defenses – all
lame. He used the old two-step routine so familiar to debaters; he maintained
that some truths in life are revealed by the Scriptures, and other truths not
mentioned in Scripture are revealed by Reason. Even though the immortality of
the unregenerate soul was supported by neither the Scriptures nor by Reason
alone, he argued, it was supported by the two of them when used
together – just as a bridge needs both pillars to support it. And
then he danced back and forth from one to the other, leaving the one without
having established anything but acting as if he had when he turned to the
other. His attempt to verify the immortality of the unregenerate soul was his
biggest failure as a philosopher and theologian. Knowing he was able to
establish nothing, Albertus the Great, without being
too obvious about it in his defense, retreated from both Scripture and
philosophy and said the faithful could safely rely on the doctrines of their
Holy Mother Church.

---------- page
9 ----------

Today’s Christians are
unable to do any better than Albertus, so this huge
and important topic is absent from works on Christian doctrine. In other words,
just as Christians – before Averroes opened his big mouth and shouted “The
emperor has no clothes!” – ignored Bible study and trusted that their sincere,
godly, dead heroes of the faith were doctrinally correct, today’s preachers and
pewsters are doing the same thing by blindly relying
on the validity of the traditions of the elders.

Today’s encyclopedias,
however, with no religious axe to grind, are not afraid to openly state that
the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not supported by
either Testament of the Bible, but came to Christianity from the Greek
philosophers. (Go look it up in your encyclopedia. Britannica’sMicropædia has it under “soul”; and in the Macropædia under “Christianity” find the section “Christian
thought and doctrine”, and in the subsection “Christian Philosophy” read the
part called “History of Christian philosophy.”) The pagan origin of the
doctrine is not a mystery. I say again, it is very well known.
But it is an unmentionable because it reveals that our spiritual leaders and
preachers have been for many centuries ignorant and/or shallow in their
understanding of the Bible, or have been hypocrites who knew better but were
too weak and selfish to stand up and preach correct doctrine. As a result, all
Protestant denominations that inherited the doctrine from Rome have Logically built the same doctrinal daisy chain the Roman
Catholic Church did upon the Platonic/Augustinian foundation. If the souls of
the unsaved do not have everlasting life, much of the evangelical emphasis of
the church, which is based on saving the pagans from spending their
“everlasting lives” in the lake of fire, will turn out to be wasted. And it
would mean the reason the Lord issued the Great Commission (Mk 16:15)
was for some reason other than the traditional belief that He wanted to keep
the unsaved from going to hell when they died (Mt 10:5; 15:22-26). And
it would explain the question that has plagued Christians since Augustine: How
could God so callously ignore the fact that multiple millions of Gentiles (with
“immortal” souls) were pouring into hell all during the Old Testament period,
blatantly expose that callousness in the verses we just looked at, and not bother
to issue the Great Commission until after His resurrection?!

When the false
doctrine of the immortality of unregenerate human-but-not-animal souls made
converting the unsaved the major purpose of the church (“the main thing is
soul-winning”), preachers began to place more emphasis on the importance of
their pewsters’ bringing unsaved visitors to church
than on the pewsters learning the Bible. And since
the unsaved are not and cannot be subject to the laws of God (Ro 8:7)
because God’s truth is spiritually discerned (1 Co 2:14; Jn 3:3,6), preachers found
that the word of God had less effect on carnal pagans than did emotion. So
evangelistic preaching lowered its aim from the head to the gut. That’s why you
hear so many dramatic, heart-wrenching, and heart-warming stories from the
pulpit aimed at the unsaved – emotion has an appeal the Bible cannot
match! Preachers found that their born again but carnal Christian
congregations also enjoyed soap opera stories more than they did Scripture, and
at home their pewsters had more interest in reading
novels (“Christian fiction”) than in reading God’s Book. And guess what today’s preachers discern from that telling fact: Nothing!

Anyway, some
denominations built upon the false doctrine of the immortality of the unregenerate
soul in a different way. They correctly wondered what good it was to get everlasting
life from the new birth if we allalreadyhaveeverlasting
life. And they wondered why the Bible says we get everlasting life only
from Christ if in fact even the unsaved pagans have everlasting souls. So
they changed the definition of everlasting life from life without end
to “living in heaven rather than living in hell.” Therefore they claim
salvation no longer means a mortal person is birthed by the Spirit of God into
spiritual immortality, it means the never-ending life he “already has”
will be spent in heaven. Again, because they thought the Greek philosophers
were right about everybody already having immortal life, these
denominations redefined the word “everlasting” to mean God would never punish
the iniquity of saints by changing His children’s home address from heaven to
hell like He did with His beloved Lucifer. They say Lucifer’s
being kicked out of God’s household means even though Lucifer was
immortal and had spirit life he never had “everlasting” life because God knew
this son of His was a “professor” not a “possessor.” Thus was the false
doctrine the Roman Catholic Church launched four Crusades to defend used as the
foundation for the false doctrine of “eternal security”. But I don’t want to go into doctrine in depth here in the
historical section, so let’s press on.

One of Albertus Magnus’ main
agendas was to lobby for the official combining of Greek philosophy and
Christianity. This would not just bring liberals and conservatives together, it
would also allow philosophy to free the mind while Christianity
prevented the social chaos and decadence that many scholars feared would result
if Reason ever did become public property. Albertus
believed religion should be kept out of all topics except itself – in
accordance with the rules of philosophy. In other words, because philosophy’s
Reason was believed to be a reliable road to truth, it would be a
helpful addition to Christianity because it would expose superstition and error
in the Bible; but because Christianity and the Bible were uncertain
roads, they should not be allowed to affect the reliable road of philosophy.

Because he lived at a time when the Vatican wasn’t ready to
completely sell out to philosophy, Albertus just
missed becoming the Third Pillar of Western Civilization. However, just as the
First Pillar, Alexander the Great, learned philosophy at the feet of Aristotle,
and just as the Second Pillar, Augustine, learned philosophy at the feet of the
Eight-Day Wonder, Ambrose, so, too, did the Third Pillar of Western
Civilization, Thomas Aquinas, learn philosophy at the feet of Albertus Magnus – and Aquinas was Albertus’
greatest contribution to civilization.